YOU HEAR ME? HELLO?
>> HELLO. THE DECEMBER 3rd, 2025
LAND USE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO
ORDER. IT IS 2:03 P.M. I'M
EDDIE, CHAIR OF THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE. WILL THE COMMITTEE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> VICE CHAIR.
>> HERE.
>> PRESENT.
>> CHAIR. THERE ARE FIVE
MEMBERS.
>> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE TO THEA GENA. I MOVE TO
ADOPT THE AGENDA. IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTION THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED. HEARING NO OBJECTION
THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED. GOOD
AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. THANK YOU
ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I'M
EDDIE. THE NEW DISTRICT 2
COUNCILMEMBER AND LAND USE
CHAIR. THANK YOU AND AS ALWAYS
THANK YOU TO THE CITY CLERKS,
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF FOR
HELPING US PREPARE FOR THIS
MEETING. WE WILL MOVE ONTO
PUBLIC COMMENT. WE WILL NOW OPEN
THE HYBRID PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD. COMMENTS SHOULD RELATED
TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND WITH
IN THE PURVIEW OF THIS
COMMITTEE. CLERK, HOW MANY
SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TODAY?
>> WE HAVE SEVEN IN PERSON AND
FIVE REMOTE.
>> EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE TWO
MINUTES. WE WILL START WITH IN
PERSON SPEAKERS FIRST. CLERK,
CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE PUBLIC
COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS?
>> PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE
MODERATED IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER THE PERIOD IS UP TO 20
MINUTES. SPEAKER ALSO BE CALLED
IN THE ORDER IN WITH RE ARE
REGISTERED. AFTERWARD WAS HE
WILL MOVE TO THE REMOTE
SPEAKERS. SPEAKER ALSO HEAR A
CHIME WHEN TEN SECONDS ARE LEFT.
SPEAKERS MIC WILL BE MUTED IF
THEY DO NOT END IN THE ALLOTTED
TIME. THE COMMENT PERIOD IS OPEN
AND WE WILL START WITH THE FIRST
SPEAKER ON THE LIST. THAT IS JON
CHANEY. ONE SECOND. JON.
>> MY NAME IS JON CHENEY. I'M
AN INVISIBLE PERSON. I LIVE ON
MY BOAT IN SEATTLE AND WAS NEVER
COUNTED AS A PART OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHEN I LOOK
AT THINGS ARE YOU ADDRESSING AND
CHANGES RELATED TO HOUSING IN
THE CITY WE ARE INVISIBLE PEOPLE
AND I HOPE THE WORK OF THE
COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR DOING WORK
TO UNDERSTANDING THE FULL AMOUNT
OF HOUSING WITH IN THE CITY,
ACCURATELY REFLECTS ALL OF US
WHO LIVE ON THE WATER. I'M ALSO
INTEREST I HAVE BEEN EVICTED
FROM MY MORTGAGE WITH NO
PROTECTIONS AS AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PERSON. 17 HOUSEHOLDS
OUT OF MY MOORAGE OWNED BY THE
PORT OF SEATTLE AND THIS WOULD
NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF I HAD LIVED
ON A HOUSE ON THE LAND. SO I
THINK THERE ARE SOMEPLACES WHERE
THE CITY IS NOT PROTECTING US,
CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY AS RESIDENT
CITIZENS. ALL OF YOU HERE HAVE
US WITH IN YOUR DISTRICTS AND I
HOPE THAT YOU HEAR FROM US. WE
ARE SO HOPEFUL THAT YOU WILL
EVENTUALLY BEGIN DEALING WITH
THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BECAUSE WE HAVE WAITED FOR YEARS
ESSENTIALLY AS YOU HAVE GONE
THROUGH FLOOD PLAIN WORK AND WE
HAVE BEEN TOLD TO WAIT, TO WAIT,
TO WAIT AND WE HAVE MANY THINGS
THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE
CORRECTED IN THE CURRENT CITY
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. SO
I'M HOPEFUL THAT YOU GET OFF TO
A GOODYEAR, CONGRATULATIONS
CHAIRMAN LIN AND DO LOT OF GOOD
THINGS FOR US AS WE'RE PART OF
THE HOUSING OF THE CITY. THANK
YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE SUSAN FIDOR.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME,
CHAIRMAN. DISTRICT 1. I'M HERE
TO EXPRESS DEEP CONCERNS FOR
CB121093. LAST FRIDAY I SPENT
TIME AT THE -- SORRY --
MEMORIAL. A SITE WHERE 100 HOMES
AND 43 LIVES WERE LOST IN A
MATTER OF FIVE MINUTES. THAT
SLIDE OCCURRED AS A DIRECT
RESULT OF HEAVY RAINFALL AND
SERVES AS A CHILLING REMINDER OF
THE CRITICAL ROLE THAT CEPA
PLAYS IN OUR UNIQUE REGION.
THRESHOLDS EXIST FOR A REASON.
WHEN PUSHED TO FAR THE IRONMENT
COLLAPSES. NO LAND USE PROPOSAL
SHOULD BE APPROVED WITHOUT
SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OF REALITY
THE REALITIES AND RISKS OF
LIVING IN THIS REGION. FURTHER
ON OCTOBER 22nd, THE GOVERNOR
SIGNED EXECUTIVE ORDER 2010
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY TO
STRENGTHEN WASHINGTON STATE'S
COMMITTEE TO WORKING WITH TRIBAL
NATIONS AND SET HIGHER
EXPECTATIONS FOR HOUSE STATE
AGENCIES BUILD AND MAINTAIN
THOSE RELATIONSHIPS. THE ORDER
REQUIRES AGENCIES TO CONSULT
WITH TRIBES EARLY IN THEIR
DECISION MAKING PROCESSES WHEN
EVER AN ACTION MAY IMPACT TRIBAL
PEOPLE, LANDS AND RESOURCES.
SDCI'S OWN LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TALKS ABOUT GOING TOWARD
SUSTAINABLE USE. NO LAND USE
PROPOSAL SHOULD BE APPROVE FIRE
DEPARTMENT IT DOESN'T UP HOLD
THE FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED RIGHTS
OF OUR TRIBAL COMMUNITIES. WITH
THE BILL AS WRITTEN THE
POTENTIAL LOSS OF DOUBLE CEPI
INCLUDES THE INABILITY TO
CONDITION PROPOSAL WAS NECESSARY
MITIGATION, THE ELIMINATION OF
PROACTIVE REVIEW FOR CULTURAL
RESOURCES AND THE REMOVAL OF A
MECHANISM FOR MEASURING
EFFECTIVENESS AS REQUIRED BY THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THESE
CRITICAL HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT
CONCERNS.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE DAVID GLOVER.
>> HELLO COUNCIL. MY NAME IS
DAVE AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT 5.
I'M ASKING YOU TO VOTE NO ON
COUNCIL BILL 121093. THIS SHOULD
HAVE BEEN PROPOSED DURING THE
TWO YEAR PROASSOCIATE THAT WE
WERE GOING OVER THE ONE SEATTLE
PLAN SO NOW IT SEEMS LIKE THE
MAYOR AS HE IS ON THE WAY OUT
THE DOOR. IS HE TRYING TO SLIP
IN MORE GIFTS TO THE DEVELOPER.
WE HAVE A NEW MAYOR COMING IN.
WE HAVE NEW COUNCILMEMBERS
COMING IN. THIS SHOULD BE PART
OF THE MAYOR'S -- SHE SHOULD
GET TO CHIME IN THIS IS A PART
OF A NEW WORLD. IT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD FROM A
MAYOR THAT'S OUT THE DOOR T
WASN'T LONG AGO THAT SEATTLE
WAS ALL ABOUT THE IRONMENT. WE
HAVE A COUNCIL PUSHING THINGS
THROUGH LIKE THE GREEN NEW DEAL
WE CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT
WHILE PRODUCING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING BUT NOT HAVING REVIEWS
DOESN'T DO THAT. IT JUST MAKE
ITSELF EASIER FOR THE SLEEPERS
TO BUILD THINGS. DEVELOPERS ARE
ALWAYS TELLING US THAT THEY NEED
TO CHANGE THE CITY CODE. FIRST
THEY TOLD US THEY NEEDED TO BE
ABLE TO CUT DOWN THE TREES AND
THAT WOULD HELP US GET MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THEN THEY
SAID THEY NEEDED MORE -- THEY
NEED SMALLER SET BACKS AND THAT
WOULD HELP CREATE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING BUT WE DON'T SEE THAT.
WE SEE TOWNHOUSING GOING UP THAT
COST OVER A MILLION DOLLARS.
NONE OF THIS INCREASE OUR
HOUSING STOCK THAT MAKES IT MORE
AFFORDABLE TO PEOPLE. I'M
ASKING YOU WE NEED ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEWS. THEY ARE THERE FOR A
REASON. IT'S TO KEEP THE CITY
GREEN AND TO MAKE IT WHY PEOPLE
COME HERE I ASK YOU TO VOTE NO
ON THIS. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE CINDY.
>> GREAT. HI. I'M SANDY
SHETLER. I'M COMMENTING ON
CB121093. SEATTLE NEEDS MORE
HOUSING AND MORE TREES. WE NEED
THESE PROJECTS. WE JUST NEED TO
BE SMART ABOUT THEIR POTENTIAL
IMPACTS AND MITIGATE THEM.
PLEASE REMOVE THE ADDITIONAL 50
PARKING PLACESALLOWED AND
ENCOURAGED BY THIS BILL.
DOUBLING PARKING FROM 40 TO 90
SPACES INCREASING THE URBAN HEAT
ISLAND EFFECT, STORMWATER RUN
OFF AND FLOODING ARE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT SHOULD
BE ACKNOWLEDGED. PLEASE RESTORE
THE HOUSING REQUIREMENT OF 50%
OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIO WHICH
THIS BILL PROPOSES TO REPLACE
WITH A SINGLE UNIT AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN THIS ENCOURAGES
DEVELOPMENT OF MASSIVE RETAIL
COMPLEXES WITH JUST ONE ADU
STUCK IN THE BASEMENT AND PLEASE
ACKNOWLEDGE CULTURAL RESOURCES
DURING CONSTRUCTION GOING BEYOND
LAND ACKNOWLEDGE MENT. MINNESOTA
GOVERNOR TIM WALZ SAID IT BEST
WHEN HE SAID ALL RED TAPE IS NOT
THE SAME. THESE ARE STANDARDS WE
HAVE DEVELOPED AS A SOCIETY TO
PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE
IRONMENT THAT SUPPORTS US. HE
USED THE EXAMPLE OF FIRE ACCESS,
EMERGENCY FIRE EXITS THAT'S NOT
SOMETHING WE HAVE GET RID OF.
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, CLIMATE
RESILE IN, CE AND CITY
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SHOULD NOT BE
ROLLED BACK WITHOUT AN ANALYSIS
OF THE IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY
HEALTH AND CLIMATE RESILENCE.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE JESSICA
DIXON.
>> HI. COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME
IS JESSICA DIXON. I'M ASKING
YOU TO PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR
VOTE ON COUNCIL BILL 121093.
THIS BILL WOULD EXEMPT PROJECTS
UNDER 65,000 SQUARE FEET FROM
CEPI REVIEW. CEPA WAS CREATED TO
ASSESS AND MITIGATE THE SPECIFIC
IMPACTS OF BUILDING ON THE
IRONMENT. WHY WOULD WE BE AFRAID
OF THE BASIC ANALYSIS OF WHETHER
A PROJECT IMPACTS ON THE
IRONMENT AND BY THEENVIRONMENT I
DON'T MEAN AN ABST ARE, ACT
CONCEPT. THIS IS THE WATER WE
BREATHE AND WHICH EITHER
SUPPORTS US OR -- AND OTHER LIFE
THAT IS TRADITIONALLY SUSTAINED.
WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH OF
COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY HEAT
DOMES DURING THE SUMNER WHY
WOULD WE NOT WANT TO ASSESS AND
THEN MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF THE
PARTICULAR PROJECT ON THE
ASPECTS OF THE SHARED
ENVIRONMENT? IS IT BECAUSE A FEW
MAY NOT REAP MAXIMUM PROIT FIT?
UNLESS WE STOP REQUIRING THESE
IMPACTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ADDRESSED. I HOPE NAH YOU WILL
CONSIDER CHANGES TO THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE
STEVE. >
>> WELCOME CHAIRMAN. NOT THE
FIRST IN RECENT HISTORY AND THIS
REMINDS ME OF MANY YEARS AGO I
WAS LOBBYING NORM BEFORE HE WAS
MAYOR AND AFTER THE DISCUSSIONS
WERE OVER HE POINTED OUT THAT HE
WAS NOT ONLY NOT CHAIRMAN OF THE
LAND USE COMMITTEE BUT HAD NEVER
SERVED ON IT AND THAT WAS PART
OF HIS POLITICAL ANALYSIS WHICH
DID LEAD HIM, EVENTUALLY, TO BE
MAYOR. SO I ISSUE YOU GREAT
THANKS FOR COMING BUT I'M
WARNING YOU I ALSO GIVE YOU MY
SYMPATHIES UPON THIS ASSIGNMENT
BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN ALL ROSES
POSITION. NOW, GETTING MORE
SERIOUS HERE. THIS COMMITTEE AND
THE CITY CLAIMS TO BE PRO
HOUSING BUT, THIS COMMITTEE AND
THE CITY HAVE UNIFORMLY BEEN
PROHOUSING ONLY WHEN IT MAKES
MONEY FOR SLEEPERS. I THINK IT
SHOWS IN THE FACT THAT WE ARE
OVER ZONED AND THE AMOUNT OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS
DISAPPEARING THAT IS NOT
SUDSIDIZED AND THAT MEANS THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IS GOING AWAY. WHEN
THINK WHICH NEED TO DO BUSINESS
IN A MORE BUSINESSLIKE WAY. I
THINK WE NEED TO HAVE GOAL THAT
ARE REALISTIC BECAUSE EVERYBODY
IN SEATTLE DOESN'T MAKEOVER
$135,000 A YEAR. I'M NOT
WORRIED ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE
FINDING HOUSING. WHAT ABOUT
PEOPLE WHO MAKE 40, 50, $60,000
A YEAR AND -- MINIMUM WAGE. THAT
IS REALLY WHAT IS GOING TO
HAPPEN IN A LARGE PART OF IT.
LET'S HAVE HOUSING FOR REAL
PEOPLE, LET'S HAVE HOUSING FOR
PEOPLE WHO LIVED HERE FOR AN
EXTENDED PERIOD. DON'T GIVE ALL
YOUR AID TO PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT
TO COME HERE. LET'S TAKE CARE OF
SOME OF THE FOLK THAT ARE
ACTUALLY HERE.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE ONA.
>> ORLA. HI THERE. THANK YOU FOR
THIS OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY
TODAY. SO, I'M ASKING YOU TO
PLEASE VOTE NO ON CB121093 AND
ASKING YOU THAT YOU DO NOT
DISMANTLE CEPA WITHOUT A REAL
EIS BECAUSE THE ADENDUM DOESN'T
ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS. WE
SHOULDN'T ALREADY BE MOVING
FORWARD, REMOVING IT, CLAIMING
REGULATIONS COVER IT WHEN YOU'RE
ACTIVELY CHANGING OTHER CODES
LIKE THE STORMWATER CODES AND
CIO. PLEASE PROTECT OUR TREES
AND FOLLOW SRKW RECOVERY PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS. DO NOT INCREASE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES WITHOUT
ASSESSMENT AND IMPACT OF
MITIGATION AND TREES NOT IN THE
WAY OF THEN CITY AND MIDDLE
HOUSING MANY THE 90 SPACE
PARKING LOTS ARE GOING TO FAST
TRACK POLLUTION IN TO THE
WATERWAYS AND THE 74 REMAINING
CRITICALLY REMAINING ENDANGERED
ORCAS CAN'T TAKE ANY MORE HUMAN
MADE OBSTACLES. THANK YOU.
>> THAT'S THE LAST IN PERSON
SPEAKER WE WILL NOW MOVE OVER TO
OUR REMOTE SPEAKERS. FIRST UP WE
HAVE MEGHAN CRUISE.
CRUZ.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M MEGHAN
CRUZ FROM SPEAKING FROM DISTRICT
7. THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT SAID
FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS THIS
LEGISLATION WILL EXEMPT MOST
DEVELOPMENT FROM CEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVALUE UNTIL LONG
TERM GROWTH OBJECTIVES MET.
THAT'S OVER THE SPAN OF TWO
DECADES. THAT SHOULD GIVE ANYONE
PAUSE. RECOGNIZING THIS EXTREME
STATEMENT THE REPORT ADDS THAT
THIS IS WITH IN THE BOUNDS OF
STATE LAW BUT TO BE CLEAR STATE
LAW LEFT ENVIRONMENTAL
THRESHOLDS OPEN FOR EACH CITY TO
DETERMINE AFTER A REVIEW AND
PUBLIC VOTING, NO THE TO USE AS
AN EXCUSE TO ELIMINATE THE
PROCESS FROM MOST DEVELOPMENT AS
WE HAVE SEEN COMP PLANS DO THEIR
BEST BUT CAN'T ANTICIPATE ALL
FACTORS. OUR REVIEW PROCESSES
ALLOW US TO CATCH CONDITIONS
THAT CHANGE. THE REPORT SEEKS TO
REDUCE -- THE COMP PLAN HAS
ALREADY CONSIDERED EVERYTHING
NEEDED FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS OF
GROWTH. IT DOESN'T MENTION THAT
IT'S CONSIDERED BEFORE THE
STACKABLE APP DOUBLES ITS GROWTH
TARGETS. THE REPORT ALSO SAID
GROWTHS AND POLLIES ARE ANOTHER
STAY GUARD AS PROOF THEY PRESENT
-- THE REPORT AND THE AUTHOR
FAIL TO NOTE THAT THE REVIEW HAS
BEEN SUSPENDED IS IN FLUX. THIS
SHAKY LEGISLATION TAKE AWAY ALL
CHECKS AND BALANCES AND
EFFECTIVELY CLEARS THE WAY FOR
RUBBER STAMP DECISIONS. O UNTOP
OF THIS THE BILL HAS FLOW
LARGELY UNDER THE RADAR WITH NO
LARGE PUBLIC MEETING. THE
COUNCIL FACES A LARGE WORKLOAD
IN THE WANING DAYS OF THE YEAR
AND A WANING ADMINISTRATION.
THERE IS NO DEADLINE TO MEET
HERE. THERE IS TIME TO VET THIS
IN JANUARY WHICH IS A MATTER OF
WEEKS. THIS SEASON PLEASE GIVE
CITY PLANNING THE IRONMENT AND
THE PUBLIC THE RESPECT THEY
DESERVE AND TABLE THE
POTENTIALLY DEVASTATING
LEGISLATION UNTIL JANUARY, THANK
YOU.
>> NEXT ONE HE HAVE RUTH
WILLIAMS.
>> I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF --
CREEK ALLIANCE. I LIVE IN D5 AND
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT COUNCIL
BILL 121093. I'M OUT OF BREATH.
I GOT UP ON THE WRONG STOP.
IT'S 121093. SIGNIFICANTLY
RAISING RELAXING ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW THRESHOLD. THE COMMIT
COMMENTS MADE IN EIS,E WILL --
IT WRONGLY STATE THAT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT HAS BEEN
COMPLETED. THIS IS FALSE SINCE
THE PLAN WAS CREATED OFFER THE
EIS WAS RELEASED. I WON'T
ADDRESS THE CONTRADIRTIONS IN
THE NEW AMENDMENT THAT CONCERN
PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL
RESOURCES BECAUSE I'M HERE TO
TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. YOU
ALL KNOW THAT OUR CITY IS MORE
AT RISK TO EXCESSIVE HEAT DUE TO
BEING BRACKETED BY TWO LARGE
BODIES OF WATER. YOU KNOW THE
VALUES OF TREES, CLEANED,
CONTROLLED RUN OFF AND YOU KNOW
-- AND NOW WE HAVE THIS BILL
THAT CLAIMS TO SUPPORT CLIMATE
CHANGE R SECONDS ILENCY. HOW DID
WE GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE CAN
BRING ATTENTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL
-- HOT DIRTY AIR AND POLLUTION
OF THE SOUND AND CLAIM TO BE
WORKING TOWARD CLIMATE
RESILENCY. ARE YOU BEING ASKED
TO AGREE THAT THE CEPA REVIEW IS
OUT OF STEP WITH CURRENT PUBLIC
POLICY PRIORITIES. HOW DO WE GET
TO A PLACE WHERE WE SAY OUT LOUD
AND EVEN CODIFY THAT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS OUT OF
STEP. IS THE CONVERSE ALSO TRUE
YOU THAT ARE SURE YOU CAN COUNT
ON SCCI, ALL ON ITS OWN TO
RESTORE THE LAND WE LIVE IN EVEN
WHEN THE AGENCY RELIED ON
CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR ITS
INCOME. DOES ANYONE REALLY
BELIEVE THAT MEASURES LIKE THIS
WILL HELP RELIEVE THE PRESSURES
-- I HATE TO USE THE WORD
ABSURD.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW RETURN
TO THE REMOTE COMMENTS. NEXT UP
WE HAVE DAVID HAYNES.
>> THANK YOU. WE NEED A 20% --
FIRST WORLD QUALITY
REDEVELOPMENT OF HOMES AND
BUILDINGS. IT SHOULD BE CALLED
THE LAND MISUSE AND ABUSE
COMMITTEE. THEY ARE PUTTING A
BUS AND A TRAIN NEXT TO THE
RESIDENTSAL LIVING SPACE
CREATING MODERN THIRD WORLD
INTER CITY HOUSE THAT WILL
IMPACT THE LIVEABLE ENVIRONMENT
OF PEOPLE'S DAY T O'DAY
HEALTH. THEY ARE WILL CONSTANTLY
LIST TONE THE BUS AND TRAIN AND
YOU ARE FORCING THEM TO LIVE IN
THE LOUDEST PART OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AS IF YOU ARE DOING
THEM A FAVOR. THAT'S ACCEPTABLE
TO SELL OUTS, AND CORRUPT GREEDY
COLD HEARTED LANDLORDS SE WILL,
F DEALING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
THAT ARE WEAPONIZING TO SELL OUT
THE WORKING CLASS THEY EXPECT TO
PAY 30% OF THEIR MONEY FOR A
CRAPPY RENTAL AS THEY SABOTAGE
THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS TO
ENSURE NOTHING IS BUILT BACK BET
TEAR WOULD COMPETE WITH THEIR
REMORTGAGED HOME THEY WANT TO
DUMP ON OTHER PEOPLE WHILE
COUNSEL'S RENTAL PROPERTY WANTS
TO ENSURE THE OPPRESSIVE SQUEEZE
LACKING IN HOMES DENIED BY THE
PRIDE OF COUNCIL SELF DEALING TO
GET RICH UNDERMINING THE ONE
SEATTLE PLAN, CHEATING A
MULTITUDE OF YOUNGER
GENERATIONS, SOLD OUT BY THE
LIKES OF LANDLORDS ON COUNCIL
WHO WATER DOWN THE INTEGRITY OF
THE PLAN BY TAINTING WITH RACISM
AND DOING THE BARE MINIMUM AND
TAKE AWAY THE INCENTIVES FROM
REAL DEVELOPERS AND ONLY HELPING
NONPROFITS. TAKING 30% OF YOUR
WAGES AND SALARY. IT'S OBVIOUS
AND SELF DEALING LANDLORDS
DON'T CARE ABOUT THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT UPON WHICH 21st
CENTURY RESIDENT ALSO LIVE
BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS ON THE
SIDE OF THE ROAD. YOU'RE BEING
PUNISHED BECAUSE YOU NEED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID. NEXT UP WE
HAVE SCOTT.
>>
SCOTT? PRESS STAR 6.
OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO
OUR NEXT ONE BUT SCOTT, WE WILL
COME BACK TO YOU. NEXT WE HAVE
ALBERTO ALVAREZ.
>> HELLO. HI. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER, CONGRATULATIONS
ON WINNING SEVERAL ELECTIONS IN
THE CITY SO FAR. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR BOLD LEADERSHIP AND EPMATHY
FOR THE WORKING CLASS. IS OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO WELCOME NEW
FAMILIES AND OWNERS ON FIXED
INCOME. AS OUR POPULATION PASSES
800,000 IT WAS REPORTD THAT LESS
PEOPLE HAVE CARS. ELIMINATING
PARKING MANDATES AND BUILDING
VERTICALLY ARE THE BEST WAYS TO
PROTECT TREE CANOPIES. WE HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH LANDLORDS LIMITING
HOUSING, INCREASE THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY. I FULLY SUPPORT
EXPANDING ZONING FOR NEW
FAMILIES ACROSS EVERY
NEIGHBORHOOD. WELCOME V IB RANT
FAMILIES. SUPPORT OUR LOW INCOME
ELDERS AND INVITE THE YOUNG
WORKING CLASS. COUNCILMEMBER
EDDIE LIN, CONGRATULATIONS ON
WINNING THE MANDATE FOR
AFFORDABILITY. WE ALL HOPE TO
SEE REAL ACTION AND SUPPORT FOR
THE WORKING CLASS. THANK YOU ALL
AND HAVE A GREAT DAY.
>> SCOTT WE'RE GOING TO TRY YOU
AGAIN.
SUPERFLUSH
>> YEAH. THANK YOU. I WAS -- PIT
HITTING POUND 6. THANK YOU,
INTRODUCED MYSELF YESTERDAY AT
THE FULL COUNCIL MEETING. THE
LAND COMMISSION, YOU KNOW IS
HEARING ABOUT POLLUTION, RUN OFF
AND HOW THAT IS -- HARMING THE
ORCA WHICH IS THE CASE AS THEY
GET STARVED. THE AMOUNT OF
POLLUTION THAT COMES OUT OF
THEIR FAT IS MORE DETRIMENTAL.
SO PAYING AT TENSION TO THE
POLLUTION RUNOFF INTO THE SALISH
SEA MAKES A DIFFERENCE. THE
LARGEST THING THAT SEATTLE CITY
COULD HAVE IS HAVE THE SEATTLE
LIGHT OF SEATTLE LOWER NO DAMS
ARE PRESENT IN THE ENERGY THEY
BUY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THEY ARE STRESSING ON IF THEY
WILL GET A GOOD CONTRACT WITH
YOU GUYS, CITY OF SEATTLE.
SECOND LARGEST CUSTOMER. IF YOU
REQUEST NO LOWER SNAKE RIVER
DAMS THE COURT CASE CAN BE
RESOLVED. IF I HOPE YOU WILL
CONSIDER THIS. MAYBE A POSTCARD
WRITING CAMPAIGN ON THIS
STARTING NOW. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE SUZANNE
GRANT.
>> HELLO. HELLO. THIS IS SUZANNE
GRANT. A GROSSLY IN-- IMPACT
STATEMENT TO RUBBER STAMP THE
VAST MAJORITY OF CONSTRUCTION
FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS. ARE YOU
TRYING TO ECHO THE ACTIONS OF
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHEN IT
COMES TO IGNORING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS WE ARE? THE
CITY CLAIMS THE REVIEW IS
ALREADY COVERED BY OTHER CODES
BUT THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT TRUE.
DO NOT PASS IT WITHOUT ANALYZING
THE IMPACTS OF INCREASED
IMPERVIOO US SURFACE, COULD NOT
PASS IT OUT ADDING ENFORCEMENT
OF POST CONSTRUCTION OWNER,
STORMWATER SESSIONS -- DO NOT
PASS IT WITHOUT MOVING THE 90
SPACE PARKING LOT TO ALIGN WITH
THE ALLOWANCES OF RC43 -- DO NOT
PASS IT WITHOUT PROVIDING AN
ANALYSIS OF THE CAPACITY OF SECI
TO SUFFICIENTLY ENFORCE
PROTECTIONS OF CEPA. STRUGGLE TO
ENFORCE CURRENT VIOLATIONS. DO
NOT PASS IT WITHOUT LOOKING AT
MITIGATION. DO NOT PASS IT
WITHOUT RESTORING THE 50% FLOOR
AREA RATIO HOUSING BACK UP FROM
ONE UNIT OF HOUSING IN THE
PROPOSED BILL. WE FOLLOW THE
GUIDANCE OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY
-- DO NOT DISMANTLE CEPA. THANK
YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE GABRIELE
KENNEDY GIBBONS.
>> HELLO COUNCIL. THIS IS
GABRIEL. I'M A CURRENT STUDENT
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
AND I'M CALLING IN TODAY AND
SKIPPING MY CLASS BECAUSE OF HOW
CONCERNED I AM WITH COUNCIL BILL
21 -- 121093. I'M CURRENTLY
STUDYING ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON AND IT'S
INSTALLED IN ME MY PROFESSORS
HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT WHEN WE
ARE WILDING DENSITY WITH WE ARE
DOING THAT IN A WAY THAT IS
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT.
THOSE THINGS DON'T HAVE TO GO
AND HAVE A CO COMPROMISE OF ONE
TO DO THE OTHER. THE WAY THAT
THIS BILL IS WRITTEN IS
CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN ITS
IMPACTS THAT WOULD LAST FOR THE
NEXT 20 YEARS. IF THE STATEMENT
IS MADE THAT THIS -- THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS ARE
COVERED IN OTHER LEGISLATION
THEN KEEPING LEGISLATION AROUND
COULDN'T CAUSE MY PROBLEMS
BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY THERE. SO
IT'S ABSOLUTELY RECKLESS AND
VERY ALARMING SURPRISE THAT YOU
WOULD CONSIDER THIS I URGE TO
YOU VOTE NO AND TO AMEND THE
LANGUAGE TO BE MORE SPONGE
BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT
ALL OF US FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR THAT CONCLUDES OUR
SPEAKERS.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL FOR
YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS TODAY. I DO
WANT TO SAY THAT THERE IS NOT A
VOTE EXPECTED TODAY. SO WE WILL
HEAR BRIEFING HERE SHORTLY.
THERE ARE NO OTHER REGISTERED
SPEAKERS. WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO
OUR ITEMS OF BUSINESS. NOW MOVE
ON TO THE FIRST ITEM OF
BUSINESS. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
READ ITEMS 1, AND 2 INTO THE
RECORD?
>> COUNCIL, 121135 AN ORDINANCE
RELATED TO LAND USE AND ZONING
FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT PLANS
AND AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
LAND USE AND ZONING ADVISING
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THRESHOLDS
ADDRESSING TRANSPORTATION
REQUIREMENTS AND CULTURAL
RESOURCE PRESERVATION
REQUIREMENTS.
>> WILL OUR PRESENTERS PLEASE
JOIN US AT THE TABLE? ONCE
READY, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND
BEGIN YOUR BRIEFING AND
PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL CHAIR
AND OTHERS. IT'S AN HONOR TO BE
HERE. THANK YOU AGAIN AND
CONGRATULATIONS. WE HAVE HAD ONE
BRIEFING ON THIS BEFORE. SO THIS
MAY BE FAMILIAR BUT BECAUSE WE
HAVE A NEW COUNCILMEMBERS AND --
WHERE ARE YOU? SORRY. I'M THE
POLICY DIRECTOR AT SDCI. SORT OF
UTILITY PLAYER YOU MAY SEE ME IN
DIFFERENT ROLES AT DIFFERENT
TIMES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GORDON, SENIOR PLANNER WITH
SDCI.
>> SO I WANTED TO GIVE JUST A
SUPER QUICK OVERVIEW WHICH I
THINK WILL KIND OF HELP GROUND
THE DISCUSSION THAT GORDON WILL
GO THROUGH. ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES I THINK WE FACE HERE
IS THAT CEPA IS A -- IT'S A
TOPIC THAT SOUNDS GREAT LIKE
IT'S IRON MENTALLY PROTECTED.
IT HAS THAT IN THE WORDING BUT
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF GROUNDING
IN THE HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF IT
AND HOW IT WORKS. SO WANT TO
FRAME FOR A MOMENT THE PURPOSE
OF CEPA WHICH IS TO ACT AS I
PRACTICE BACK STOP TO
WHEREGULATIONS AREN'T SUFFICIENT
TO ADDRESS THINGS LIKE, YOU
KNOW, STORMWATER RUN OFF OR
REDUCTION OF TREE CANOPY OR
OTHER ISSUES THAT PEOPLE ARE
RIGHTFULLY CONCERNED ABOUT CEPA
WAS PUT IN A PLACE IN THE NIXON
ADMINISTRATION AROUND THE -- ITS
BEEN AROUND FOR SOME TIME. WHAT
WE HAVE SEEN OVERTIME IS A -- A
STEADY -- MORE AND MORE CODES
THAT ADDRESSED ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS THE SHORELINE CODE, THE
ECA CODE. OUR CONSTRUCTION
CODES, STORMWATER CODES WHICH
ARE MANDATED FOR UPDATES BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS. THERE'S A
BROAD WEB OF RULE THAT THE CITY
HAS ADOPTED THAT ARE MEANT TO
ADDRESS ALL THE VERY VALID
CONCERN. THE REALITY OF CEPA IS
BORN OUT BY WHAT WE SEE IN THE
HISTORY OF THE LAST THREE OR
FOUR YEARS WHILE WE HAVE BEEN
OPERATING UNDER THRESHOLDS THAT
ARE THE SAME AS WHAT WE ARE
PROPOSING. SO WE KNOW WHAT THE
NET EFFECT IS. WE ALSO KNOW SORT
OF THE BROAD HISTORY OF WHAT WE
SEE IN TERMS OF CEPA APPEALS AND
HOW OFTEN THEY RESULT IN
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONING. AGAIN
THE FOCUS OF A LOT OF FOLK IS TO
THINK OF CEPA IS THE WAY TO GET
CONDITIONS. UNFORTUNATELY THAT
IS JUST NOT THE CASE. IT HAS A
GROUNDED WITH IN IT -- THE
OVERVIEW POLICY. IT'S
ESSENTIALLY A RULE SET THAT SAYS
YOU CAN'T IMPOSE MITIGATION IF
THERE IS SOMETHING -- AS A
BETTER AND I DO MEAN BETTER. A
REGULATION THAT HAS NO DECEMBER
NO DISCRETION. SO THE OVERVIEW
POLICY AS WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE
LAST PROBABLY 30 YEARS HAS
RESULTED IN LESS AND LESS
CONDITIONS WEEK IMPOSED BY CEPA
BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE AND MORE OF
A REGULATORY WEB THAT ADDRESSES
THE VERY REAL AND SPECIFIC
IMPACTS. THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT'S NOT EASY TO UNDERSTAND.
I THINK ITS SOMETHING WE COULD
DO BETTER AT IN OUR PUBLIC
CONVERSATION AROUND IT. I WOULD
JUST GROUND US BACK IN WHAT WAS
IT ITS ORIGINAL GOAL AND HOW
WERE WE DOING IN THAT WAY? I
THINK WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS WE
ARE DOING REALLY WELL AT
IMPLEMENTING REGULATION THAT ARE
PASSED BY COUNCIL. THERE ARE --
YOU KNOW A WEB OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REGS. THE STORMWATER CODES GET
UPDATED. ARE YOU GOING TO HEAR
ABOUT FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS.
THERE IS A SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM UPDATE. ALL OF THESE
PROVIDE A MUCH STRONGER FABRIC
FOR MITIGATING AND ADDRESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. THAT'S
REALLY THE THRUST OF WHY THE
STATE HAS SAID TO THE CITIES AND
THE BIGGEST CITY IN THE STATE
CONSIDER REVISING OUR THRESHOLDS
AND HERE ARE THE GUARDRAILS FOR
DOING IT. WE ARE OPERATING IN
THE GUARD LAILS ADVISED BY THE
STATE TO DO WHAT HE WITH ARE
SEEN OFFICER THE LAST THREE OR
FOUR YEARS IN SPEEDING UP
PERMITTING TAKE AWAY SOMETHING
THAT WASN'T REALLY PROVIDING US
THE SERVICE THAT WE IMAGINE IT
HAS AND LETTING THE REGULATION
THAT WE HAVE DO THE HEAVY
LIFTING. THAT'S THE GENERAL
OVERVIEW THAT I WANT TO KIND OF
FRAME WHAT GORDON WILL TALK
ABOUT. SO, THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT OVERVIEW.
THIS PRESENTATION HERE WILL
COVER A NUMBER OF TOPICS ABOUT
THE PROPOSAL. THE OBJECTIVES,
THE FINDING THAT HELP SUPPORT
THE CHANGE. WHAT OVERVIEW THE
PROPOSED CHANGES, WHAT THE
NONRESIDENTIAL THRESHOLDS ARE
AND HOW THEY REPLATE TO THINGS
LIKE THE PLAN'S GROWTH PLANNING
ESTIMATES AND ALSO TOUCH ON
TRANSPORTATION AND HISTORIC
TOPICS AS WELL AND HOW WE ARE
ADDRESSING THOSE. SO, PART OF
THE OBJECTIVES HERE ARE TO
ADOPT, IMPLEMENT THE STATE'S
GUIDANCE FOR STREAMLINING CEPA
-- ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT
RELATES IN A LARGE DEGREE TO
WANTING TO FOSTER FASTER HOUSING
PRODUCTION AND ENCOURAGE THE
PATTERNS THAT ARE REPRESENTED IN
THE PLAN PAST AND THE CURRENT
ONE PROPOSED. AND WE WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO
SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS, AND
MEDIUM SIZED BUSINESS AND BEING
ABLE TO GET PERMITTING TO PER
SUE THEIR OBJECTIVES AND SUPPORT
THE COMMUNITY AS WELL. OVERALL
THIS PROPOSAL DOES QUITE A BIT
TO STREAM LINE THE CODE -- THE
PERMITTING PROCESS AND SORT OF
AS STEVEN SAID RELY ON THE CODES
WE HAVE MORE TO BE -- TO VET
WHAT IS NEEDED TO GRANT THE
PERMIT AND WE FIND THAT OUR
CODES ARE PROVIDING A LOT OF
EFFECTIVE PROTECTION THAT
WARRANT STREAMLINING THE PERMIT
PROCESS. THEN WE WANT TO
DOCUMENT A FEW OF THE EXISTING
CODE REQUIREMENTS, PROPOSED CODE
REQUIREMENT THAT HELP MITIGATION
FOR IMPACTS. SO, DEFINITELY THE
NEW PLAN AS ONES IN THE PAST
THEY ARE PROMOTING A CITY WIDE
BASED GROWTH CENTERS
TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND GIVEN
THAT THE STATE IS REALLY PUSHING
THAT KIND OF CENTERS BASED
GROWTH AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE
FEEL IT'S A RIGHT TIME THAT WE
SHOULD TAKE THE NEXT STEP AND
ALIGN THE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
WITH THOSE MORE CONSISTENTLY
STATEWIDE -- CITY WIDE. WE FOUND
THAT THE REGULATIONS OF THE
STATE DO SUPPORT TAKING THIS
APPROACH. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT
MORE IF YOU WOULD LIKE. AND THAT
-- THERE ARE CERTAIN LIMITS
WHERE NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
TO HAVE A BREAK FROM REVIEW. SO
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE THRESHOLD
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LEVEL
ABOVE WHICH A PROJECT -- A
PROJECT IS LARGER THAN THE
THRESHOLD THAT THEY WERE STILL
REQUIRE THE REVIEW. THE STATE
HAS SET CERTAIN LIMITS ON
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS SUCH
THAT LARGER ONES WOULD NEED SOUP
S CEPA STILL. AS DAVID MENTIONED
HE ARE FINDING THAT OUR CODE
REALLY EXTENSIVELY ADDRESSES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN THEM
SUCH THAT WE -- THE REVIEW
BECOMES REDUNDANT AND NOT
PRODUCTIVE.
>> THIS IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE
MAN CATEGORIES OF THE CHANGES WE
HAVE. WE WOULD PROPOSE TO EXEMPT
ALL -- ALL EXEMPT ALL
DEVELOPMENT FROM CEPA REVIEW
THAT INCLUDES HOUSING AND THAT
WOULD BE OF ANY SIZE. THERE ARE
CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS FOR -- IF A
PROJECT IS LOCATED IN A
SHORELINE AREA IN MANY CASES IF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL AREA IS PRESENT
AND IF THERE ARE HISTORIC
LOCATIONS AFFECTED BY
DEVELOPMENT THEIR POLICIES AND
-- ADDRESS THAT AS WELL. AS HAS
BEEN MENTIONED THE PROPOSED
EXEMPTIONS WOULD LAST UNTIL THE
CITY WIDE GROWTH TARGETS
ACHIEVED. FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
GROWTH.
>> ONE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER
JAUREZ, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO DO
A POINT OF CLARITY. I ALSO
BECAUSE I'M GOING BACK TO MY
NOTES AND I WANT TO CLARIFY
SOMETHING WITH THE PRESENTERS
AND ALSO FOR THE PUBLIC. MY
UNDERSTANDING JUST SO WE ARE
CLEAR, IS THIS INFORMATION
THAT'S IN FRONT OF US IS THE
SAME INFORMATION THAT WE
RECEIVED ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14th
AND ALSO OCTOBER 31st. CORRECT
ME IF I'M WRONG IN WHICH WE
WENT THROUGH THIS POWER POINT
AND ALSO AT THOSE TWO TIMES WE
HAD PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WE ALSO
WENT THROUGH THE 15 PAGE REPORT
SO I KNOW IT'S A REFRESHER. I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS
ALL THE SAME INFORMATION THAT WE
ARE GETTING AGAIN TODAY WHICH WE
SHOULD. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
I'M CLEAR ON THAT. SO IT'S THE
DIRECTOR'S REPORT. THE POWER
POINT. THE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THE SUMMARY FISCAL NOTE THAT YOU
DID. I UNDERSTAND. THIS IS ALL
THE SAME INFORMATION, CORRECT?
>> THE POWER POINT IS THE SAME
INFORMATION. I BELIEVE WE HAVE
ONLY PRESENTED IT ONE TIME TO
THE COMMITTEE AND SINCE SOME OF
THE FOLKS HERE WERE NOT PRESENT
AT THAT MEETING WE ARE THOUGHT
WE WOULD GO OVER IT AGAIN AND
THE INTENT IS NOT TO GO OVER
EVERY SINGLE BIT OF INFORMATION
HERE BUT TO LIKE YOU SAY SORT OF
SUMMARIZE OR CAPTURE THE OVERALL
PICTURE.
>> I'M NOT QUESTIONING YOUR
JUDGMENT ABOUT DOING IT AGAIN.
I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE
MY NOTES ARE CLEAR. BECAUSE YOU
HEARD SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS HAS
BEEN IN THE COMMITTEE. IT
CERTAINLY WAS IN THE COMMITTEE
UNDER OUR FORMER CHAIR. I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAD THE
RIGHT INFORMATION THAT NOTHING
HAD CHANGED IN THE POWER POINT
AND WHEN DID WE DO THE REVIEW OF
THE SDI, 15 PAGE DIRECTOR'S
REPORT? WAS THAT ALSO ON OCTOBER
31st OR WAS THAT ON OCTOBER
14st.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE -- YEAH I
DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE COVERED
THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT IN DETAIL
AT A DISCUSSION HERE.
>> NOT A DETAIL BUT WE HAVE --
HAVE WE ADDRESSED? OR IS IT IN
THE POWER POINT?
>> OVERALL THE CONTENT OF THE
POWER POINT IS SIMILAR TO THE
CONTENT OF THE DIRECTOR'S
REPORT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE
UP ANY DETAILED OF THE DR.
ACCOUNTOR'S REPORT THAT YOU
WOULD LIKE AS WE PROCEED.
>> I'M -- AGAIN I APOLOGIZE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THE
ORDER IN WHICH THE INFORMATION
HAS BEEN PROVIDED UNDER THE LAND
USE COMMITTEE. UNDER THE FORMER
CHAIR AND LEADERSHIP IN THE
INFORMATION IN THE TWO PUBLIC
HEARINGS IN THE FISCAL NOTES AND
SUMMARY NOTES AND YOUR POWER
POINTS AND THE INFORMATION
INVOLVED SO I THINK IT'S ALWAYS
IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC THAT
CALLS IN AND CERTAINLY SHOWS UP
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT KNOWS THAT WE
HAVE BEEN STUDYING FOR QUITE A
WHILE AND WE HAVE BEEN TRACKING
THE STATE LAW FOR QUITE A WHILE.
I KNOW MR. CHAIR IS A IS AW ARE
OF THIS. I I'M JUST TRYING TO
PUT THIS INTO CONTEXT. I HAVE
NOTES AND DIRECT EAR'S REPORT.
THE FISCAL NOTE THAT I
UNDERSTAND YOU WERE IT AND OF
COURSE THE POWER POINT W THAT,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
INDULGING ME.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
JAUREZ. I DO WANT TO HAVE ONE
KIND OF CLARIFYING QUESTION. WAS
THERE ANY MORE ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE FOR THE
COMP PLAN OR REQUIRED FOR THIS
LEGISLATION?
>> THERE WAS AN ADDENDUM FOR
THE PLAN IT ADDRESSED THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE
COUNCIL'S COMMITTEE AND THE --
THE NET OR MARGINAL DISTRICTS OR
IMPACT THAT WERE RELATED TO THAT
HAPPENED TO COVER THE HISTORIC
TOPIC AND A BIT MORE DETAIL.
>> WAS THAT PUBLIC AND DO YOU
KNOW THE TIMING OF THAT AT ALL?
>> I THINK THAT WAS OUT IN JUST
THE PAST WEEK.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
>> AND AGAIN YOU CAN LOOK --
LOOK IT UP ON OPCD'S WEBSITE
AND FIND IT THAT WAY.
>> MR. CHAIR. MR. CHAIR. I
APOLOGIZE. MAI I ASK A QUICK
FOLLOW UP.
>> OF COURSE.
>> SO, JUST QUICKLY WAS THE
DIRECTOR'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE THRESHOLD
UPDATE THE 15 PAGE WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS. IS THAT POSTED
ONLINE? UNDER SDCI OR OPCD OR
WAS IT POSTED FOR THE PUBLIC?
>> THE PROPOSED INFORMATION FOR
THIS PROPOSAL BOTH AND BOTH
BILLS ARE PRESENT ON SCIA
WEBSITE AND CAN LARGELY BE FOUND
ON LEGISTAR AS WELL THOUGH THAT
WOULD HAVE TO BE DOUBLE CHECKED
AS TO THE OVERALL COMPLETENESS
OF THAT.
>> OKAY SOT ONLY REASON WHY I
SAY THIS IS -- HELP ME HELP YOU.
A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE
HAVE BEEN HEARING AND I KNOW THE
CHAIR KNOWS THIS AS WELL AND THE
FORMER CHAIR FROM PUBLIC COMMENT
AND THE FOLKS THAT SHOW UP AND
CALL IN, A LOT OF THESE ISSUES
WERE ADDRESSED IN THIS 15 PAGE
SDCI DIRECTOR'S REPORT. I
JUDGIST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S
POSTED FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE IT
AND CAN ANSWER PARTICULARLY THE
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANALYSIS AND
THE APPROACH TO OUR CULTURAL
RESOURCES AND ALL THAT HAVE IS
IN THE REPORT WITH THE
RECOMMENDATIONS. I JUST WANT TO
MECHANIC SURE IT'S ONLINE WHERE
PEOPLE CAN SEE THAT THAT'S WHY
I'M ASKING.
>> IT'S ON OUR SDCI WEBSITE.
THERE'S CHANGES TO CODE LINK
UNDER CODES AND OUR PUBLIC
WEBSITE, CHANGES TO CODE AND
THEN CURRENT PROJECTS UNDER
REVIEW. THIS WILL SHOW UP AS A
-- UNDER THE TOPIC.
>> THANK YOU THERE CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. I DO BELIEVE IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE
ITS CLEAR WHERE THIS INFORMATION
IS OBTAINABLE SO THAT EVERYBODY
THAT'S INTERESTED CAN FIND IT
SO THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING
THAT.
>> SURE THING. SO JUST TO BE
BRIEF HERE. WE ARE PROPOSING A
FEW ITEMS TO UPDATE IN OUR CODES
THAT RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION
AS WELL AS TO UPDATE OUR
PROVISIONS ADDRESSING RESOURCE,
HISTORIC RESOURCE THAT COULD BE
FOUND IN FUTURE PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT. THAT TOPIC
ESPECIALLY FOLLOWS GUIDANCE FROM
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THAT
ASKS US TO CHECK OUR RULES AND
UPDATE THEM ACCORDINGLY TO BE AS
CURRENT AS POSSIBLE. THAT'S WHAT
WE HAVE DONE IN THE PROPOSAL.
SO, I MENTIONED A LITTLE ABOUT
THE NONRESIDENTIAL THRESHOLDS.
WE PROPOSED TO HAVE UP TO A
65,000 SQUARE FOOT
NONRESIDENTIAL CEPA THRESHOLD
FOR MOST COULDERS MANIAL OR
NONRESIDENTIAL USES. SUCH AS
INDUSTRIAL OR OTHER NONRETAIL
USES AND THEN A 30,000 SQUARE
FOOT LIMIT FOR RETAIL USES AND
THEN THERE ARE THESE OTHER
CHANGES PROPOSED TO PARKING
SPACE LIMITS AND GRADING AND
THOSE REFLECT RAISES IN -- THAT
THE STATE HAD ACCOMMODATED.
CERTAINLY WE COULD TALK ABOUT
WHETHER THE CITY OF SEATTLE
SHOULD MAKE THOSE CHANGES. SO,
YES, WE'LL JUST BE FOLLOWING --
WE'RE RECOMMENDING FOLLOWING
THE PLANS'S APPROACH AND HAVE A
CITY WIDE THRESHOLD AND
PARTICULARLY EXEMPTION FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE
THOSE RUN UNTIL THE HIGHER
THRESHOLDS RUN UNTIL CITY WIDE
GROWTH TARGETS MET.
I MENTIONED THE UPDATES TO
HISTORIC PROTECTION WE WOULD
KEEP ALL OF THE GOOD
PREDEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE AND
POSSIBILITY OF VISIT LOOKING AT
SOIL CONDITIONS. IF A GRADING
PERMIT IS REQUIRED. IF DISCOVERY
RESOURCES HAPPENS THERE ARE
CERTAIN STATE LAW THAT APPLY
INCLUDING STOP WORK AND ASSESS
THE RESOURCE. WE CONTINUE TO
INCLUDE THOSE. WE ARE PROPOSING
TO ADD THOSE KINDS OF
PROTECTIONS TO ONE ADDITIONAL
AREA WHICH IS CALLED A MEANDER
LINE BUFFER WHICH REFLECTS THE
DISTANCE WITH CLOSE TO PREVIOUS
SHORELINE AREAS SUCH AS THE
MEANDERS IN THE RIVER. THIS IS
AN ILLUSTRATION. THE PURPLE
AREAS WERE THE HISTORIC FLOW THE
PRACTICEERN WHICH WAS STRAIGHTEN
AT A CERTAIN POINT MORE THAN 100
YEARS AGO. SO, WE HAVE A FEW
TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS AND
THIS WOULD RETAIN A
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
REQUIREMENT EVEN IF A REVIEW IS
NOT REQUIRED OF A PROJECT. WE
ARE LOOKING AT THIS TO REFLECT
THE IDEA THAT A LARGER PROJECT
COULD HAPPEN WITHOUT THIS KIND
OF A STUDY BUT IF A -- PROJECT
IS ABOVE 40,000 SQUARE FEET WE
RECOMMEND THAT A TRANSPORTATION
STILL BE DONE TO CONSIDER THEIR
IMPACTS IN THE AREA. THIS WOULD
NOT BE REQUIRED IN REGIONAL
CENTERS LIKE DOWNTOWN GIVEN
THEIR ROLE IN -- AS MAJOR GROWTH
CENTERS. WE WOULD UPDATE THE
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE IN THE CODE
TODAY TRYING TO APPLY TO THE
SAME ZONES THEY DO TODAY AND
ALSO CLARIFY A CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENT BY THIS
IS A -- ELEMENT IN CITY
PRACTICES THAT IS OFTENREQUIRING
DEVELOPERS TO GO WORK WITH SDOT
TO MANAGE TO FLOW THE TRAFFIC,
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND DELIVER
REOF MATERIALS AND SO ON. WE ARE
JUST SETTING A THRESHOLD FOR
THAT IN OUR CODE TO COVER THE
BASIS KIND OF CLOSE THE LOOP ON
THAT REQUIREMENT. AND TMP
REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE RESTATED
TO BE MORE CLEAR. THEY ARE
APPROXIMATELY REQUIRED AT THE
SAME LEVEL AS THEY ARE TODAY IN
THE SEATTLE MIXED ZONE, DOWNTOWN
AND NORTH GATE ZONES. THOSE
WOULD CONTINUE. THEN ANOTHER
POINT WAS THAT THE STATE ASKED
US TO COORDINATE WITH WASH DOT
ABOUT PROJECT REVIEW AND
REFERRALS IN THE CITY. WE HAVE
HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS WITH
THEM TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT
DO THAT. WE WOULD CLOSE THE LOOP
WITH WASH DOT TO SHOW SORT OF
EXACTLY HOW THEY WOULD WANT THAT
NOTICE. THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE
ANY CODE CHANGE BUT JUST
ADMINISTRATIVE CHECK. AND, THAT
IS THE BRIEF OVERVIEW AND HAPPY
TO ENTERTAIN MORE QUESTIONS.
>> WONDERFUL. DO ANY OF MY
FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. PLEASE
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE. I WILL SAY I WAS
NOT HERE AT THAT LAST TIME THIS
WAS BRIEFED BUT SINCE THEN SDCI
DID GIVE ME A BRIEFING AND
UPDATE SO I WANT TO THANK SD CI
FOR THAT AND TO ENSURE THE
PUBLIC THAT I DID GET A BRIEFING
EVEN THOUGH I MISSED THAT ONE
COMMITTEE MEETING. I DO FEEL
HIGH LEVEL -- WHEN YOU BRIEFED
ME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS. THIS
CAN GET WONKY REALLY FAST. SO
CAN YOU JUST -- I'M GOING TO --
IF YOU WOULD INDULGE ME AND
MAYBE FOR THE PUBLIC WATCHING
WHO MAY BE IS ALSO THINKING IS A
BIT WONKY, THESE CHANGES ARE
BEING MADE TO ALIGN WITH THE
STATE. HOWEVER, THE CITY AS
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT
I'M REMEMBERING FROM THE
BRIEFING THE CITY'S
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS STRONGER
THAN THE STATE SO IN MANY WAYS
THIS -- YOU KNOW JUST TO
REASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT THIS
ISN'T LESS REVIEW, NECESSARILY
SO CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THAT AND I THINK YOU WILL
DO A BETTER JOB EXPLAINING THAN
I AM. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
BRIEFING. THAT WAS A PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATION WE TOOK AWAY SOME
GOOD POINTS THAT. COUPLE THINGS
ACTUALLY BECAUSE YOU TOUCHED ON
ALL THE RIGHT SPOTS. THIS IS IN
ALIGNMENT WITH THE STATE
GUIDELINES THIS. THEY ARE
OBVIOUSLY -- FOR THE ENTIRE
STATE. CEPA IS A APPLIED
STATEWIDE. THESE CHANGES ARE
REALLY MEANT TO ADDRESS A
REALIGNMENT OF THE STATE LEVEL
AROUND URBAN CENTERS. AS A STATE
WE PLAN ON THINGS WHERE THERE IS
GROWTH IN URBAN PLACES AND
GROWTH IN RURAL TO UNDER THE
HOSPICES OF GM A. THESE ARE ALL
MEANT TO ALIGN WITH THE WHY IDEA
OF IN FIELD DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE
FOR INASSISTANTS BETTER
REGULATIONS AND LOTS OF THEM AS
COMPARED TO LET'S SAY THE
REGULATIONS THAT APPLY IN
WATKIM. WHEN YOU MIGHT NEED CEPA
IN WATKIM IS -- YOU NEED INFIELD
DEVELOPMENT. YOU FRAME THAT
EXACTLY RIGHT WE DO HAVE A
ROBUST SET OF RULES. WE HAVE A
LOT OF RULES. THE TAKE AWAY
POINT IS THAT A FORMER REVIEWER.
CEPA IS DISCRETIONARY. IT
INVOLVES CONDITIONS. WE PLACE
CONDITIONS ON PROJECTS IT'S TWO
STEPS. FIRST SEE IF ARE THERE
IMPACTS SO SIGNIFICANT THAT WE
NEED TO DO CONDITIONS AND THEN
DO WE NEED TO DO AN EIS TO LOOK
AT WHAT THEY SHOULD BE OR NOT.
THAT IS A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS
SUBJECT TO APPEAL. THOSE
CONDITIONS CAN BE THROWN OUT.
OUR UNDERLYING RULES FROM
CRITICAL AREAS, CULTURAL
RESOURCES, THOSE ARE NOT ABLE TO
BE NEGOTIATED. THEY ARE HARD AND
FAST. IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE
THEM THERE'S A NARROW WINDOW TO
CHALLENGE THEM. THAT'S A --
THAT MAY BE A BIT WONKY BUT IT
KIND OF GETS AT THE HEART OF
THAT MATTER. I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT ANSWERED BOTH YOUR
QUESTIONS OR JUST THE FIRST ONE.
>> IT DID. I JUST WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THESE THINGS
WONKY BUT THE PUBLIC HAS REAL
SERIOUS CONCERNS THAT I -- YOU
KNOW I AGREE WITH. I MEAN, YOU
KNOW, WE DON'T TAKE THESE
THINGS LIGHTLY AND I WANT TO
MAKE SURE AND REASSURE THE
PUBLIC THAT AS THE CITY IS
MOVING FORWARD WITH THESE
HOUSING AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT
WE ARE TAKING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW VERY CRITICALLY,
SERIOUSLY. I DON'T KNOW ANOTHER
WORD THAN SERIOUS AT THIS
JUNCTION TO USE FOR THIS BUT WE
DO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY AND I
DON'T WANT THE FOLKS TO WALK
AWAY FEELING OR WHO ARE WATCHING
OR TRACKING TO FEEL THAT SOMEHOW
WE ARE LOSENNING SOMETHING
THAT'S GOING TO HAVE THIS
SERIOUS NEGATIVE IMPACT SUCH AS
THE COMMENTER WHO CAME AND
TALKED ABOUT THE LANDSLIDE AND
OF COURSE THAT'S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITICAL AREA AND
WE HAVE STRICTER RULES FOR THAT
AS PER YOUR PRESENTATION HERE
WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THOSE ARE
NOT EXEMPT FROM THIS CEPA UPDATE
IF YOU WILL. THIS LEGISLATION IS
UPDATING CEPA. THAT IS NOT
EXEMPTED. THOSE AREAS NOT
EXEMPTED. I JUST REALLY -- WANT
TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT
THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS
LEGISLATION IS DOING. THAT IS TO
SAY LOOSENING THAT REVIEW FOR
THINGS LIKE THOSE CRITICALLY
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS.
THAT THE CITY DOES IN FACT HAVE
RULES THAT WE ARE NOT RELAXING
BY WAY OF THIS UPDATE TO ALIGN
WITH THE STATE.
>> YOU NAILED T THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO LOOK AT
IT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT
AND THIS IS -- MY OPINION SUPER
WONKY STUFF AND CAN BE CONFUSING
AND I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR US TO HAVE A COMMON
UNDERSTANDING TO THE EXTENT
POSSIBLE AND I DID HAVE A COUPLE
OF JUST SORT OF GENERAL
QUESTIONS AND THAT REGARD. WHEN
WE TALK ISN'T CEPA REVIEW WE
ARE REALLY -- IF YOU COULD
CLARIFY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NEW
DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT CHANGES THAT WE'RE
PLANNING TO APPROVE. THERE'S A
CITY ACTION WE ARE TAKING BUT I
WANT TO CLARIFY I THINK CEPA WAS
ADOPTED IN 1971. YOU KNOW FOR
EXAMPLE, PRIOR TO 1971 THERE WAS
NO RCE APPROXIMATE, A REVIEW
WOULD THAT BE CORRECT IN
>> THAT'S CORRECT. LOTS OF LAND
USE DECISIONS. URBAN PLANNING
THAT WERE MADE BEFORE THEN NEVER
UNDERWENT THE REVIEW.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, UNDER CEPA
AT LEAST.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THOSE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE
ALLOWED. SO YOU KNOW IF WE HAVE
ROADS, AND HIGHWAY THAT ARE
CAUSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,
IF THERE IS NO ACTION TO TAKE WE
ARE NOT SORT OF REREVIEWING
THOSE UNLESS THERE IS SOME SORT
OF NEW ACTION WE NEED TO TAKE. I
JUST WANT TO KIND OF CLARIFY
THAT WE ARE -- CEPA IS FOCUSED
ON NEW DEVELOPMENT. NEW ACTION.
IT'S NOT TAKING A LOOK AT ALL
THE PRIOR DECISIONS. EVEN IF
THERE THOSE DECISIONS MAY BE
CAUSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
WOULD THAT BE CORRECT?
>> THAT'S FAIR TO SAY. IT'S
ONE OF THE WONKIER -- IT
DOESN'T GIVE US THE AUTHORITY
TO WALK PAST DECISIONS BACK.
MOST OF THOSE REALLY IMPACTFUL
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. SO,
THAT'S WHY THE FOCUS OF THE
STATE ON THE EASTBOUND FIELD
DEVELOPMENT.
>> AND I JUST WANT TO -- MAKE
THAT CLEAR. I DO THINK THAT A
LOT OF US DO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT
THE ENVIRONMENT AND THIS TOOL IS
REALLY FOCUSED ON NEW
DEVELOPMENT. PRIOR DECISIONS AND
EXISTING URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE
MAY BE JUST AS IMPACTFUL IN
TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE US OR
ALLOW US TO GO BACK AND REVISIT
THOSE DECISIONS.
>> YEAH. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
AN EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS CLEARLY
NOT STILL USED USABLE IS ON THE
BIG PROJECTS. THIS WOULD DO
NOTHING TO CHANGE THINGS LIKE A
WASH DOT PROJECT IF YOU CAN
THINK OF THOSE -- DOING EIS'S
WHEN THEY DO A TRANSPORTATION
UPDATE. THE PORT OF SEATTLE WILL
HAVE TO DO THE EIS IF IF THEY
EXPAND IN -- THIS IS REALLY
FOCUSED ON INFIELD DEVELOPMENT
THAT'S IN AN AREA WHERE MOST OF
THE MAJOR DECISIONS HAVE ALREADY
BEEN MADE. I THINK YOU SHOW IT
FAIRLY.
>> ONE OTHER THING. JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY IN GENERAL NEW
DEVELOPMENT, NEW CONSTRUCTION IS
SUBJECT TO MUCH STRICT
TERRIMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENERGY CODE REQUIREMENTS THAN
10, 20, 50 YEARS AGO. WOULD THAT
BE CORRECT?
>> YOU ARE REALLY -- YES. THE
PACE OF CHANGE IN OUR CODES,
ROLLING FORWARD INTO
INCREASINGLY -- YOU KNOW
ASPIRATIONAL IN SOME CASES. WE
NOW HAVE ELECTRIC VEHICLE
PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE
SHOW UP IN LAND USE CODE. THE
ELECTRICAL CODE AND SOON THE
BUILDING CODE. THAT'S AN
EXAMPLE WHERE WE FOCUSED ON AN
ISSUE WHICH IS AN EMERGING ONE
AND PUT IN REGULATIONS IN
MULTIPLE PLACES TO DO THAT. I
HAVE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS A
FAIR BIT OF TIME AND I HAVE NOT
YET SEEN A REGULATION ROLL
BACKWARDS IN TERMS OF PROTECTION
T DOES REQUIRE CONSTANT
STEWARDSHIP TO MAKE SURE WE GET
IT RIGHT. I THINK YOU ARE --
OPENING UP THE ISSUE FOR THE LAY
PERSON IN A VERY REASONABLE WAY.
I THINK I AGREE WITH ALL OF
THAT.
>> AND I THINK JUST PART OF MY
QUESTION IS THAT WE HAVE
EXISTING BUILDING THAT MAY BE
APPROVED UNDER OLDER CODES THAT
MAY NOT BE AS GREEN AS NEW
DEVELOPMENT AND THOSE OLDER
BUILDINGS ARE ALLOWED TO
CONTINUE UNDER THOSE LESS
ENVIRONMENTALLY ROBUST
REQUIREMENTS BUT NEW DEVELOPMENT
WE ARE POTENTIALLY -- WE UNDER
THE CODE ARE REQUIRING THEM TO
COMPLY WITH THE MORE STRICT NEW
CODE. THAT'S IN -- UNDER THE
CEPA EXEMPTION IT EXCEEDS WHAT
WE COULD REQUIRE UNDER CEPA AND
THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT NECESSARY.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT THAT'S
EXACTLY RIGHT. WE ARE UNIQUE
AMONG MANY JURISDICTIONS AND WE
HAVE AN EXISTING BUILDING CODE
TO SAY WHEN IS ENOUGH UPGRADE OF
THIS BUILDING SUFFICIENT THAT WE
NEED TO IMPOSE SOME OF THESE
NEWER REQUIREMENTS. MAYBE NOT
THE FULL SUIT, BUT SOME OF T
THAT'S WHERE THE CITY HAS --
GOTTEN AHEAD OF THAT PARTICULAR
ISSUE. I THINK THAT YOU ARE --
FRAMING EXACTLY RIGHT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVER A
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS. SOME OF THAT ALSO
GOES TO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO
CLARIFY FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL.
I WILL SAY ANOTHER PIECE I THINK
IS WE HAD A CONVERSATION WHEN
YOU BRIEFED ME ABOUT THE FACT
THAT WE WERE TRYING TO STREAM
LINE DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE DOING
LESSON THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PIECE BECAUSE IN MANY WAYS WE
ALREADY DO A MORE STRINGENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAN CEPA
REQUIRES AND THEN THE CEPA IS
LIKE ADDITIVE IN A WAY THAT'S
NOT HELPFUL EVEN THOUGH IT
SOUNDS LIKE IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL
AND ALL IT ACTUALLY DOES IS ADD
TIME. IT DOESN'T REALLY ADD
MORE STRINGENT RULES.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. IT'S
SORT OF A TWO HOLD ISSUE. ONE IS
THAT IT -- YOU HAVE -- IF WE
JUST LOOK BACK WHAT HAS RESULTED
FROM CEPA REVIEWS. WHAT SORT OF
CONDITIONS.
THE ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION YOU
SAW GORDON PRESENT REALLY
ADDRESSES. THESE ARE THE ONLY
PLACE WAS HE END UP WITH
CONDITIONS AND LET'S JUST MAKE
THAT PART OF THE CODE. IN
ESSENCE ITS BEEN THIS EXTRA
PROCESS THAT'S NOT ADDED THE
VALUE. IT'S PROBABLY THE
BIGGEST ELEMENT. THE SECOND
PIECE THAT HAVE THAT WE TALKED
ABOUT IN YOUR OFFICE AND I THINK
IS USEFUL TO UNDERSTAND FOR THE
PUBLIC IS WE ARE IN A TIME OF
LOOKING AT ALL OF THIS INCREASED
DENSITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES. WHAT WE WOULD
BE THOUGHT OF AS SINGLE FAMILY.
THE STATE HAS SAID YOU WILL
CHANGE THAT AND WE HAVE ACTED
ACCORDINGLY. THE REALITY IS THE
THRESHOLDS FOR WHAT PROJECTS
WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH CEPA IN
THOSE AREAS. I THINK THAT'S
WHERE THE PUBLIC -- WOULDN'T
THIS HAVE CEPA. THE REALITY IS
THAT IN THE LOWER THRESHOLDS
THOSE WOULDN'T HAVE. THOSE
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS WOULDN'T
HAVE BE SUBJECT TO IT. I CAN --
THE PUBLIC THINKS I'M LOSING
THE TOOL THAT I WILL NEED. THE
REALITY IS THAT NO, THAT TOOL
WASN'T REALLY APPLIED THERE.
THAT TOOL IS REALLY -- WAS
REALLY ALWAYS MORE AT THE BIGGER
TARGETS AND WE ARE FOLLOWING THE
GUIDELINES AND SAYING IN THAT
CITY LET'S RIGHT SIZE THOSE.
THAT'S AN EASY MISUNDERSTANDING
.
>> RIGHT BECAUSE CEPA WOULDN'T
HAVE APPLIED TO THOSE PROJECTS
SO YOU AREN'T TAKINGA ANYTHING
AWAY BECAUSE YOU NEVER HAD IT TO
BEGIN WITH. THAT DOESN'T MEAN
WE DON'T ALL CARE ABOUT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. WE DO.
CERTAINLY I VERY MUCH CARE ABOUT
IT AND VERY MUCH CARE ABOUT OUR
CANOPY ACROSS THE CITY BECAUSE
IT'S NEEDED. PARTICULAR LYRE
WITH THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE
CHANGE. I DO -- CHAIR, SOMETHING
YOU THAT SAID ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
THIS IS ALL FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT,
OLD DEVELOPMENT WE DON'T GO
BACK IN TIME AND MAKE CHANGES.
WE DON'T REQUIRE IT THOUGH IN
MANY INSTANCES WE HAVE
INCENTIVES SUCH AS FOR INSTANCE
IN HOMES LIKE COAL, ENERGY. THE
FURNACES BEING UPGRADED FOR
INSTANCE AND PROVIDING
INCENTIVES TO HELP FOLKS,
PROPERTY, PEOPLE THAT OWN HOMES
BE ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S
MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT AND BETTER
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. WHILE WE
DON'T REQUIRE IT THE CITY DOES
TRY TO FIND OPPORTUNITIES TO
HAVE INCENTIVES FOR CONVERSIONS.
THAT'S WHAT I'M -- GO HEAD.
>> JUST TO ADD ONTO THAT
THERE'S AN ENERGY CODE
BENCHMARKING PROGRAM THAT THE
EXACT TITLE OR NOT. IT IS
REQUIRING MULTIFAMILY AND SOME
OTHER -- LARGER BUILDINGS TO HIT
A HIGHER MARK OF ENERGY CODE
PERFORMANCE GOING FORWARD IN TO
THE FUTURE. THAT IS BUILDING IN
SOME ENERGY CODE IMPROVEMENT TO
EXISTING BUILDING STOCK AS WELL.
THAT'S A VERY BENEFICIAL THING
REDUCING GREEN HOUSE GAS BY 25%
WAS THE GOAL THERE.
>> THE THING THAT'S INSTRUCTIVE
TO NOTE IS THAT IT WOULD BE EASY
TO SAY WE ARE GETTING RID OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIVE TOOL.
THE REALITY IS MAYBE WE CAN ALL
DO A BETTER JOB OF HIGHLIGHTING
THIS. THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS COUNCIL THINKS ABOUT
ALL THE TIME. THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE. IT'S JUST THAT THEY ARE
NESTED IN -- IT'S NOT AS
OBVIOUS LIKE THE ENERGY PROGRAM
THAT GORDON DESCRIBED. YOU ARE
THINKING OF THE UPGRADE
REQUIREMENTS OR WHAT WE HAVE
DONE ON NATURAL GAS AND ALL THE
OTHER CLIMATE MEASURES. THEY
SEEM SMALL BUT THEY ARE ACTUALLY
MORE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE
TARGETED. THAT'S THE STORY I
WANT TO TELL ABOUT CEPA. WE ARE
JUST BEING TARGETED SPECIFIC AND
LESS FLEXIBLE. IT'S JUST
CLEARER AND EASIER TO
UNDERSTAND. THERE'S A TIME AND
PLACE TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT IS
AND THAT'S HOW THIS BODY,
ESPECIALLY THIS YEAR HAS SPENT A
LOT OF TIME DOING. I THINK THAT
YOU CAN PAT YOURSELF ON THE BACK
FOR THAT WORK AT LOOK AT
THINKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND
TO USE THE RIGHT TOOL RATHER
THAN THE BLUNT TOOL. IT WASN'T
AS EFFECTIVE ACROSS THE BOARD.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>> THANK YOU. JUST ANOTHER
FOLLOW UP. AGAIN I WANT TO GET
-- I CAN'T OUTDO COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA THERE WITH GETTING WONKY.
WHEN I WENT BACK TO THE
DIRECTOR'S REPORT AND WE HAD
THIS DISCUSSION BACK IN OCTOBER
14. YOU HEARD PEOPLE -- PUBLIC
COMMENT ON -- THE TWO PUBLIC
HEARING. I JUST WANT TO --
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS IN
REGARDS TO DISCOVERIES.
CULTURAL. THE CULTURAL PIECE.
THE CULTURAL RESOURCES THAT THIS
-- THIS PARTICULAR
RECOMMENDATION DOES REQUIRE
TRIBAL NOTE AND AFTER THAT WHICH
IS EVEN BETTER IS STATE AND
FEDERAL LAW KICKS IN FOR TRIBAL
CONSULTATION. THE TRIBES ARE NOT
BEING LEFT OUT OF THEIR RIGHTFUL
PLACE FOR ENFORCEMENT AND
CONSULTATION WITH -- THIS GOES
BACK TO THEL 0S AND 90s. I WANT
TO I WAS ONE OF THE LAWYERS IN
THE 90 THAT MADE SURE THE STATE
LAW COMPLIED THE FEDERAL LAW
WHICH THIS CITY HAS DONE AND
WILL CONTINUE TO DO. FOR ME I
WAS QUITE HAPPY TO SEE THAT
THERE'S THE CONSULTATION AND
IT'S MORE THAN A BACK STOP WHEN
YOU HAVE THE STATE AND FEDERAL
LAW KICK IN AND THEN REQUIRING
TRIBAL CONSULTATION IN THE STATE
OFFICER WHEN YOU HEARD SOMEONE
TALK ABOUT THE MODIFIED TREES
AND SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. I WANT
TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC AND HEAR IT
AGAIN THAT THIS IS JUST --
ISN'T JUST HANGING OUT THERE
THAT NOBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION
TO THESE OTHER RESOURCES AND
CULTURAL RESOURCES THAT THEY ARE
BRINGING IN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.
THEIR LAWYERS AND EXPERTS AND
LOOKING AT THESE AND WORKING
WITH THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES
TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE PROTECTED.
I JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN ADD MORE
INFORMATION THAT'S FEDERAL AND
STATE LAW DOES KICK IN AND DOES
PROVIDE MORE PROTECTIONS. THANK
YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> CHAIR. JUST TO SAY AND THANK
YOU COUNCILMEMBER JAUREZ FOR THE
ADDITIONAL, I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THAT AND AGREE THAT
TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE MORE
INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC WHICH
IS WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY.
YOU KNOW I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
-- I WANT TO THANK THE PUBLIC
FOR THEIR COMMENTS. NOT JUST THE
FOLK THAT CAME HERE BUT THE
FOLKS WE HAVE BEEN HERING FROM
ONLINE, THE EMAILS WE HAVE
RECEIVED LETTERS. YOU KNOW,
PEOPLE VERY MUCH CARE ABOUT THIS
AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO
BRING THIS UP AND THEN HOLD US
ACCOUNTABLE FOR GIVING THEM THE
INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED
BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT
-- PEOPLE ARE AFRAID THEY DON'T
ALWAYS TRUST AND WITH GOOD
REASON UNFORTUNATELY. IT IS GOOD
THAT THESE THINGS ARE BROUGHT UP
IT'S GREAT THAT WE ADDRESS THEM
IN CHAMBERS FOR THE -- IT'S
GREAT THAT AND I APPRECIATE
SDECI TAKE BACK THE FEEDBACK TO
WHAT TO INCLUDE AND HOW TO
INCLUDE IT ON THE WEBSITE AND
SORT OF MORE PLAIN LANGUAGE
BECAUSE YOU KNOW AS WE HAVE ALL
SAID IT GETS WONKY. SAYING GETS
WONKY DOESN'T MEAN THAT I
DON'T THINK THAT THE -- MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC DON'T UNDERSTAND.
I'M NOT TRYING TO OFFEND
ANYONE. THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC THAT KNOW MORE THAN I DO
AND GET IN TO THE WEEDS ABOUT
THESE ISSUES BUT I DO KNOW THAT
OTHER FOLKS MAY NOT. FOR THOSE
THAT NOW NOT WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE ARE MAKING THE
INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE.
SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE IT'S A
DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. I WANT TO
THANK THE PUBLIC FOR ALL THEIR
COMMENTS. I THINK AND WELCOME
THE ENGAGEMENT AND THE FEEDBACK
IF WE CAN IMPROVE UPON SOMETHING
THAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS
LEGISLATORS. THAT IS IMPORTANT
TO ME. I KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT TO
MY COLLEAGUES AND I WANT TO
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE WITH US
AND WHERE WE HAVE PROVIDED
FEEDBACK YOU ARE INCORPORATING
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC.
ALL THOSE THINGS TRUE AND CO
EXIST AND I DO WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK THE PUBLIC
FOR AUTHORITY EVEN GAUGEMENT
BECAUSE I VERY MUCH CARE ABOUT
THAT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. NOT
SEEING DOWN ANY FURTHER COMMENT
WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS REFLECTED
ON THE AGENDA.
>> ITEM THREE, EXTENSION
LEGISLATION.
>>
>> WILL OUR PRESENTER PLEASE
JOIN US AND PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND JUST
BECAUSE I FORGOT TO SAY IT THANK
YOU TO OUR PAST PRESENTERS FOR
THAT VERY COMPLETE ENGAGEMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. I PROMISE I'M
NOT GOING TO USE THE WORD WONKY
MORE THAN THAT IN THIS
PRESENTATION TODAY. MY NAME IS
CHRISTINA. I AM THE LEGISLATIVE
AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
MANAGER. I'M NOT NORMALLY UP
HERE. I LEAVE THAT TO MY
COLLEAGUES. THIS IS KIND OF AN
UNION URIBE
BRIEFING/PRESENTATION. THIS IS
JUST MORE OF AN UPDATE ON
WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE FEMA
FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS UPDATE.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF
FAMILIAR THINGS IN HISTORY AMONG
COUNCILMEMBERS AND STAFF ABOUT
THESE. JUST FOR REFRESHER IN
2020 FEMA UPDATED THEIR FLOOD
INSURANCE MAPS AND THEY REQUIRED
CITIES TO UPDATE THEIR
REGULATIONS RELATED TO THOSE
AREAS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE
MAPS. 2020 IS QUITE A LONG TIME
AGO AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
VERY CLOSELY WITH THE PORT AND
WITH OTHER STAKE HOLDERS TO
INCORPORATE FEEDBACK WHILE WE GO
THROUGH AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE
FINAL REGULATIONS ARE GOING TO
BE. I'M HERE TODAY IN ADVANCE
OF THE NEXT LAND USE COMMITTEE
WHICH IS THE 17th TO SHARE A
LITTLE CONTEXT BEHIND THAT. THAT
MEETING WILL HAVE A PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE 10th EXTENSION OF
THE REGULATIONS AND THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT UNFORTUNATELY WE
HAVE TO COME BACK TO ASK YOU FOR
BUT IT'S FOR A REALLY GOOD
REASON. SO AS I SAID WE
CONDUCTED ADDITIONAL OUTREACH
WITH STAKE HOLDERS. WE
INCORPORATED THAT INTO OUR
ONGOING COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE
PORT AND WE DO HAVE A FINAL
AGREEMENT REACHED THE PORT AND
STAKE HOLDERS FOR THE PERMANENT
FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS.
LEGISLATION IS COMPLETE. WE ARE
UP LOADING SHORTLY. I JUST SAW
AN EMAIL SAYING THAT WE ARE
READY TO INITIATE LGISTAR WITH
THAT. WE ALREADY HAVE PROVIDED
NOTICE ON THE PERMANENT
REGULATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE WHICH AS YOU KNOW THIS
IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE 60 DAYS
PRIOR TO FINAL ACTION BEING ABLE
TO TAKE PLACE. THIS ADDITION
ALEX TENSION ALLOWS US TO TAKE
TIME TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL
BRIEFINGS TO COUNCILMEMBERS
ABOUT THE PERMANENT FLOOD PLAIN
REGULATIONS. HAVE YOU ALL HEARD
ABOUT THE EXTENSION. THIS IS THE
REAL DEAL. WE ARE EXCITED TO
HAVE THIS AGREEMENT IN PLACE AND
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY
FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH THE FINAL
REGULATIONS. AGAIN IT ALSO -- TO
BE IN COMPLIANCE. I HAVE --
THINK WE HAVE SAID THIS A FEW
TIMES AND I APPRECIATE THE
SUPPORT THAT YOU ALL PROVIDED AS
WE CONTINUED TO EXTEND THESE AND
AS WE GET TO THE PLACE WHERE WE
GET PERMANENT REGULATIONS. IF WE
DON'T GET THE EXTENSION AND THE
CURRENT EXTENSION -- IT EXPIRES
ON FEBRUARY 4th OF 2026. JUST A
REMIND ERNIE PROPERTY IN FLOOD
PLAIN AREAS. CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
OBTAIN FEDERALLY BACKED
MORTGAGE. IF THE PROGRAM DOES L
APS E. THE CITY COULD BE REMOVE
FROM THE NATIONAL FLOOD
INSURANCE PROGRAM. IN IS, YOU
KNOW, ONE LAST EFFORT TO GET
THIS GOING AS I SAID WE ACTUALLY
HAVE LEGISLATION THAT WE ARE
TRANSMITTING. WITH REGETTING
CLOSE TO TRANSMITTING. WE ARE
EXCITED TO BRING THE FINAL
PACKAGE TO YOU WILLIAM
RETHANKFUL FOR ALL THE SUPPORT
YOU PROVIDED AS WE HAVE COME TO
YOU TO ASK FOR EXTENSION. WE ARE
READY TO GO. WE NEED THIS ONE
LAST EXTENSION TO -- MAKE SURE
YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES AND THE
PUBLIC AWARE OF WHAT THE FINAL
REGULATIONS LOOK LIKE AND TO
MAKE SURE WE HAVE ALL THEM
NOTICING IN PLACE FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND THE
PUBLIC. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THERE IS ROBUST PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT ON THIS. DO YOU HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME?
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I WILL TAKE
THAT. DO YOU HAVE ONE?
>> NO. I DO NOT. I UNDERSTAND
THAT THE 10th IS THE MAGIC
CHARM. THANKFUL TO HAVE THIS BE
THE FINAL ONE.
>> YEAH.
>> SO THANK YOU. IF THERE IS NO
QUESTIONS. THEN THANK YOU FOR
THAT UPDATE.
>> YEAH. WE WILL HAVE THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE 17th AT THE LAND
USE MEETING IN DECEMBER. THEN WE
ANTICIPATE NOTICING THE PUBLIC
HEARING IN JANUARY OR PROBABLY
MORE LIKE FEBRUARY AS WE ALL PET
ROLLING IN TO THE NEW YEAR. WE
ARE -- READY TO HOPEFULLY GET IN
THE POSITION WHERE YOU ALL FEEL
COMFORTABLE WITH IT. ACHIEVE
FINAL APPROVAL BEFORE THE
EXTENSION ENDS. WE AGAIN THANK
YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. ITS BEEN A
JOURNEY. WE ARE REALLY EXCITED
TO GET TO THE FINAL REGULATIONS
AND TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE
PUBLIC IN THAT.
>> THANK YOU. SO, BELIEVE WE
HAVE REACHED THE END OF TODAY'S
MEETING AGENDA. OUR NEXT MEETING
IS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17th,
2025 AT 2:00 P.M. ANY FURTHER
BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE BEFORE WE ADJOURN? NO.
THANK YOU. WELL DONE.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER. AND
THANK YOU. AGAIN TO ALL THE
MEMBERSst PUBLIC FOR JOINING US
TODAY FOR THIS VERY FUN AND
WONKY DISCUSSION AND HEAR
NOTHING FURTHER BUSINESS WE ARE